 |
The question came to my mind after reading an email from my friend who is non-Christian. In the email he said that people were going to heaven even before Christ came on this earth. I know that there is no way we can go to heaven except through Jesus. I do not doubt it. Just curious to know that others who were not in the group of Isreal, how was Lord God bringing them to HIM like HE is doing now through Jesus.
Please read Hebrews 11. That should answer your questions. The magic word is "faith."
Triund,
One should remember that Jesus as the Word Of God was around since before time.
Also we know that there were people in heaven long before Jesus was born as a man, Jesus and named some Himself said so and named some of them.
Also keep in mind that Moses and Elijah were with Jesus at His transfiguration and both of them had been centuries dead of the body.
So the must have been in heaven long before the birth of Christ.
As Jesus said, God "Is the God of the living" not the dead and those that went to heaven before His birth were living.
So you can tell your email friend about that.
God was loving and merciful all throughout the bible as He is today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hi Triund
If you want to go by the Bible, Jesus specifically said that no man has gone to heaven. You can quibble about word meanings etc, but that is what he said.
The only scriptures we have that may confuse us is ones that say that some men were taken up into the heavens, which of course could mean into the heavens where birds fly so as to provide a means of escape for them so they would not die at that moment.
The other scripture has us considering a vision of Moses and Elijah with Jesus. You can believe that this vision contradicts Jesus word that no man has gone to heaven before him or you can believe that no man DID go to heaven before Jesus.
Jesus even spoke of John the Baptist being the greatest man on earth but even the lowest in heaven is greater than John. (John was dead at this time, so if you want to think that men went to heaven before Jesus, you would have to believe that John was not one of them.
Then of course, if people did go to heaven before Jesus came to earth, then there was nothing that had to be saved.
If they went to heaven before Jesus and they went to heaven after Jesus, then Jesus did nothing. Many will argue that it was the way in which they are saved that is different, but that is all said because they have to believe that men did go to heaven before Jesus.
Until Jesus died for us on the cross, there was no way we could get into heaven, that is why Jesus had to come and save us.
If he did not come and lay down his life for us, mankind would be doomed.
Jesus allowing us to be forgiven, gave us the resurrection.
Lazerus did not go to heaven, he was to remain in the ground until the last day when all from the tombs would hear Jesus voice and come out of the tombs.
Jesus death gave us salvation, gave us forgiveness so we could go to heaven.
Those who did not hear the word, but had good hearts would have been taken to heaven when Jesus opened the way.
Everyone had the chance to be forgiven and later go to heaven, but the Jews were chosen as God’s special people; to stand out from the rest. They had God’s teachings and guidance and so they also had great responsibility to do as he said.
The other nations did not have such responsibility; hence they were left to fend for themselves.
But they too were accepted into heaven when Jesus cleansed the sins of everyone; not just the Jews, not just Catholics, not just Protestants.
God is not partial, anyone can be a Jew. But if you take on the role of a Jew, you must also live up to his standards; that is the responsibility the modern day ‘Jew’ has to face.
The OT has many written words concerning God's communication to all souls. And it is also written that they were all led by the same spiritual Rock as we today, by following Christ Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triund
1 Corinthians 10:1-2-3-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Christ Jesus was the WORD of God made flesh, and as it is written in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I'm sorry, but I have a MAJOR problem with that statement. If you want to say "I believe..." or "I have complete faith..." or "I have no doubt..." you will get no argument from me. But when you claim to "know" something that there is no absolute proof of I have to object. Especially when what you claim to know goes against what I and many others believe, I have to object.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triund
Frankly, I don't believe in a heavenly paradise. But if one does exist, I strongly believe that it is not restricted to people who worship a certain way. I believe, as long as one follows what is often called the Judeo-Christian ethic, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. In other words, as long as one lives a good and moral life, then they will be admitted.
While I don't disagree with what you wrote, I think I defined what I meant by a good and moral life. But I will take it one step further. One does not have to believe that Jesus was the son of God to follow his teachings about moral issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Newton
And maybe just maybe that is what belief in Jesus Christ really is, that it's all encompassing based on the Two Greatest Commandments, Love God and Love Each Other as manifested by each of us living "a good and moral life."Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Jesus came as a sacrifice, to be the one to replace all of the animal sacrifice, Before Christ the Hebrew nation had a covenant and promise from God. They looked forward to his coming and acted on it though faith with the rules of the Old Testdment. Since Jesus fulfilled the promises of the bible, he finished what was started with the promises given to Adam.
And of course there were people in Heaven before Christ that is told and shown to us in the many stories of the Old Testement and of that in the New Testement
I will note "I Newten" this is Triund's thread, not yours, you were the one trying to move it to address your non related issues.
And it is your posts that have been deleted
Please do not try to run the boards and tell the OP that they need to address your issues.
Your obvious lack of Christian knowledge is annoying at best but you side track answers by moving in non related directions because of it.
Jesus himself was the one who said that no one comes to the Father, i.e. can have eternal life, except through him. Either he was right, and no one can live a "good and moral" enough life to satisfy God's demands and hence the only way they can make it is through him, or he was wrong and his death was essentially pointless. Those are two diametrically opposite points of view and they can't both be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
And what proof do you have that he actually said those words? Or that those words represent a reality? This goes back to the Rabbi Gelman column I posted in another thread. If you take the bible, literally, word for word, you will find several instances of diametrically opposite passages.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
If you find comfort in your faith in Jesus and that by following his teachings and worshiping him as the son of God you will find salvation or heaven or whatever, then I'm happy for you. But the fact is that your belief in the Bible is a matter of faith, not provable fact. And as long as that is the case, you (nor anyone) cannot make it as a statement of fact. I'm not challenging your belief, I'm just challenging making a statement that it is established fact. Doing so challenges my beliefs. If it's wrong of me to challenge your beliefs, it's wrong for you to challenge mine.
When did I say it's wrong for you to challenge my beliefs? I have never even hinted at such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Actually, my belief in the Bible is based on 30 years of intense study of the original languages, the histories behind the manuscripts, form- and redaction-critical examination, and all the rest. Be careful before you make such absolute statements about someone you don't know. I've spent my whole life digging into this from every angle I can find, and the fact is, those words are reliable. Some of the earliest and most reliable copies of the New Testament we have are from the gospel of John, and there's an unbroken succession of copies that all say the same thing in that passage. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that they're *not* actual words that came from Jesus himself. You're free to disagree about that, of course, and as a patriotic American who believes in free speech, I will adamantly support your right to be wrong ;)
Fr Church
>I will note "I Newten" this is Triund's thread, not yours, you were the one trying to move it to address your non related issues.
And it is your posts that have been deleted>
What on earth are you on about?
You obviously found my post upsetting.
I also apologised to Triund for diverging, which is something I have never seen anyone else apologise for on this site.
I even saud that if anyone would like to answer my post they can start another thread.
What problem did you have with my thread Fr Chuck?
Is there ANY of my posts you would like to address?
Or do you just delete them?
Is this a Christian site or a Catholic site?
It's good that you aren't complaining then.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Newton
I've been here nearly three years now. It happens all the time on most of the boards.Quote:
I have never seen anyone else apologise for on this site.
The rule is that one doesn't hijack someone else's thread. If one wants to bring in a new idea, it is up to that person to start a new thread.Quote:
I even saud that if anyone would like to answer my post they can start another thread.
"Totally Christian -- and even more Christian than I gave it credit for in the beginning," responded the Protestant.Quote:
Is this a Christian site or a Catholic site?
First, if you are so used to research then you should be more careful about questioning what someone says. I never said that you said it was wrong to challenge beliefs. But that IS what you are doing. According to what you just posted, the earliest documentation is from the gospel of John. Even if that is is accurate, then it's the word of John that Jesus said such, doesn't prove that Jesus said it. I'm not sure how you can state that it is fact. And you ignored the question if it being reality. I'm not saying they aren't the words from Jesus, just that there is no absolute proof they are. That leaves the burden of proof on anyone claiming they are. And, yet again, even if he did say it, what proof is there that its reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
From what I know of the subject, the words New Testament was not written down until Emperor Constantinople 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus.
The only real fact here is that belief in the Bible is a matter of faith. That there is no absolute proof of any of it. If there were then everyone would follow the same religion. So when you state that the Bible is factual you challenge my belief that it is not.
Your "study" is not an argument based on reason. As you say, it's based on faith - not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Aren't you doing the very same thing? Supporting his right to be "wrong"?Quote:
Be careful before you make such absolute statements about someone you don't know.
The "fact" is? You're confusing fact with your belief.Quote:
I've spent my whole life digging into this from every angle I can find, and the fact is, those words are reliable.
You're not responding to Scott's point.Quote:
Some of the earliest and most reliable copies of the New Testament we have are from the gospel of John, and there's an unbroken succession of copies that all say the same thing in that passage.
Sorry, but you carry the burden. You cannot "prove" that they are the words of Jesus by challenging Scott to prove they are not. It doesn't work that way.Quote:
If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that they're *not* actual words that came from Jesus himself.
You are, however, entitled to believe anything you want. Belief is not the same as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Newton
Talking about : I deleted two of your posts where you were demanding answers to your posts and complained about Truiund high jacking the thread,
I deleted posts that appear to be obvious trollish or trouble making, I have moved you to that opinion at this point
Yes, posts do normally say they are sorry and correct their behavior after getting both unofficial and official warnings about their attitude and their posts.
This is a Christian site, which includes Catholics since they are Christians, ( something you seem to refuse to accept)
Your posts are fairly obvious ideas from some of the christian cult teachings, anti catholic, anti jewish , don't accept the trinity and more.
Another issue you come acting like you want to learn what Christianity really is, but refuse to accept some of the basic teachings of it and act like you already know what it is.
So yes your behavior is for from acceptable, and you don't come on another persons thread and start demanding they answer your questions.
And before you answer this, don't, stick to the thread or don't post. All of your posts will be reviewed very closely.
Is it reality? That gets us way too far afield of the original topic, and should probably be a separate thread. It's clear that you want to reject the reports in the gospels, and that's your privilege. But historical investigation says otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Run that by me again??Quote:
From what I know of the subject, the words New Testament was not written down until Emperor Constantinople 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus.
The books of the New Testament were all written before the end of the first century, probably either by apostles of Jesus such as Peter and John, or by companions of apostles such as Luke and Mark. Even a scholar as liberal as John A. T. Robinson concluded that all the books, even the gospel of John and Revelation, were written before A. D. 70, the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't necessarily agree that the Johannine writings were that early, but it illustrates the point. I suspect you're thinking of the councils that established the canon, which is to say, which books actually belonged in the New Testament and which ones didn't qualify. But everything was written while the generation that knew Jesus was still around. There's a story that Constantine, after his conversion, commissioned the scribes in Alexandria to make 50 copies of the New Testament, so that may be what you're thinking of. But we have part of a copy of John's gospel that dates from A.D. 125, less than 40 years after it was probably written; we have papyrus copies of several of the gospels and epistles from the second century. The earliest complete copy of the New Testament that we have, Codex Sinaiticus, dates from somewhere around the fourth century, but comparison of it with the earlier papyrus copies shows that the vast majority of the New Testament text comes to us in the same form and words that the original authors wrote.
To some extent, all historical conclusions are a matter of faith; we have to believe that the people who recorded events knew what they were talking about. That's as true of the New Testament as it is of Caesar's Gallic Wars or Thucydides' Peloponnesian War or anything else. Historical investigation of the New Testament shows that it is accurate; for a quick overview of just one of the gospels, see A. T. Robertson, Luke The Historian In The Light of Research. You can read it on Google books: Luke the historian, in the light of ... - Google BooksQuote:
The only real fact here is that belief in the Bible is a matter of faith. That there is no absolute proof of any of it. If there were then everyone would follow the same religion. So when you state that the Bible is factual you challenge my belief that it is not.
And in historical investigation, "absolute proof" is a myth. But we can go with the probabilities, and the probabilities favor the accuracy of the New Testament. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative. But it means your belief goes contrary to the evidence.
That's not what I said. Please go back and read it again and realize that you got it backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
My belief is based on evidence. Blind faith is no faith at all, it's wishful thinking. I've asked the hard questions, that's why I went after those sciences I mentioned. You can try to redefine everything I do as faith if you want to, but you're wrong. I'm not a CSI, nor do I play one on television, but I follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am.
I'm sorry Dwashbur, but your posts are not evidence. They are evidence in the sense that what Jesus supposedly said has been reported since about 70AD or a bit earlier, but they are clearly not evidence of what Jesus actually said. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Even if we had a manuscript from then (70AD - which we don't), you would still have to prove that Jesus' words are reported accurately. That was the gist of Scott's comments.
To analogize by citing Caesar or Thucydides simply falls flat. Neither book makes claims about God that people believe in today. That's the crux of the matter. It is one thing to believe Caesar's exploits, it is quite another to believe in Jesus being God.
All that is being said is that the belief that Jesus is God cannot be verified empirically. It is a question of faith, not proof.
You're beating a dead horse. When you try to apply rationality (reason, logic) to Jesus' divinity, you simply can't do it. Even if you had a tape recorder recording Jesus' every word, you would still have to prove the truth of what he said.
Belief in Jesus can be (and has been) a beautiful belief. In fact, that belief may be the essential beauty of it. But it is not, nor has it ever been, a provable truth.
Didn't Jesus himself say, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". He is talking about faith, not proof. If there were proof, what need of faith?
Whoa. You made a flying leap there. We were talking about the likelihood that what we have is Jesus' actual words, or an accurate representation thereof. Suddenly, you jumped off to the question of Jesus' divinity. That's a separate issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Whether a document talks about God or not has nothing to do with its historicity or accuracy; you pulled that out of your rationalism. There's not a separate category of history for "secular" and another for "sacred." History is history. If a historical record indicates words and events that mention a supreme being, or mention a claim by someone, or an event that can't be explained by natural means, you cannot legitimately relegate it to a ghetto of its own and make claims for it based on a separate set of rules. Either it's accurate or it's not; that's the question. How about we stick to that instead of making theological leaps that aren't part of the actual discussion?
There's a whole science of historical inquiry surrounding this stuff, but that too should probably go in a separate thread.
Did you read the Robertson book I gave you? If not, then you really aren't addressing the question of historicity. You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach.
And by the way, empiricism isn't applicable in historical science, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who actually understands both disciplines.
Good grief! I give up!Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
From long experience, I know that the discussion is over when the other side resorts to insults.
How about this - why don't you just post your position on a new thread, and we can all take it from there?
OK, I just did a little bit of research. From what I was able to tell from this, admittedly brief, research is that biblical scholars believe that the gospels you refer to where written from accounts of from John. So there are at least 2 degrees of separation here. There is still NO absolute proof that this was the word of Jesus. Even 70 years is a long time to recall something that was said at the time. Nor did I find total agreement as to what the gospels represent.
Now you make a valid point that many historical accounts from anytime prior to the Renaissance are taken with a degree of faith. But then I never said otherwise. And, in making that analogy, you prove my point.
I have raised TWO issues here. First, that there is no absolute proof that Jesus actually said that the only path to heaven was belief and worship of him as the son of god. I will point out that the gospels and the New Testament were the writings of people trying to establish a new religion. It makes perfect sense to me that they would make it appear the road to heaven was only available to those who believed.
The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.
Where exactly did I engage in insults?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
In that kind of context, I can see why this would make perfect sense to you. And yes, there's no "absolute proof." I already acknowledged that such a thing is impossible with history, especially ancient, perhaps even pre-printing-press history. Considering that there are still those who deny things like the Holocaust, maybe it's not possible even with recent history. My point is, when you want "absolute proof" you're asking for the impossible. Setting up an impossible truth-condition isn't a valid philosophical method of inquiry, as you undoubtedly already know. The best we can do is examine the evidence and weigh the probabilities. If, after that kind of examination, you come to a different conclusion, I have no problem with that. I just want to be sure we're both playing by the same rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Again, we both know there's no such thing as absolute proof in a situation like this. If you want to nail me on the point that I may have said I "know" something of this type, fine, you got me. The probability is that he said those things, since the evidence points that way, and if he said those things, either he was right or he was wrong. My point was that we can't have it both ways.Quote:
The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.
The original topic assumes that a) he said it, and b) he was right. We have now taken things miles away from that starting-point, and I'm not sure it's a legitimate thing for us to do. The question was, within that assumed starting-point, what happened to people before Jesus? Perhaps we should let the subject get back to that.
Afterthought: 70 years is not correct. It's more like 40-50 for John, even less for the other gospels, and less than 10 years for the beginning of Paul's work. So the whole New Testament is well within a single generation's time-span.
I Newton,
Jesus said that no man has ascended to heaven.
That does NOT mean that people were not taken to heaven or that their souls were not taken to heaven.
The bible clearly tells us that some were.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
How about condescending remarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
".. should be obvious to anybody who...[whatever].
"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!
"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."
Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.
Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.
LOL.
That is SOMETIMES the case but not always.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Finally! It was like pulling teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Indeed!Quote:
My point was that we can't have it both ways.
No, not asking for the impossible. I can say; "I know if I drop an object it will fall to the ground" or "I know if I ingest some food it will be digested un my body, with the nutrients being absorbed and the waste expelled" These are absolute truths that we have all experienced. The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.
So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified
Athos,
UIt seems to me that it is standard knowledge that thing of spiritual fail cannot have an absolute proof scientific or otherwise.
But there is some evidence of spirituality out there and there is philosophically some of the same.
However there are those folks in quantum math and mechanics who do claim that their studies and figures do very strongly indicate a supreme being of extremely great intelligence.
So as time goes on just maybe some scientific proof of God may come forth.
Then there's the folks in physics who are now looking for what they call the God particle using the super collider in Europe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Please see my Tolstoy quote below this reply.
Why don't you finish the sentence? It's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Oops. You're right; it was Scottgem I suggested it to. So here you go:Quote:
"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!
Luke the historian, in the light of ... - Google Books
You can call it whatever you like. It doesn't change the truth of what I said.Quote:
"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."
Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.
I couldn't care less if you or anybody else is "overwhelmed." The goal in mentioning it is to show that I've done at least as much homework as anybody else. Let's talk about condescending: anybody who believes something other than you do is just going on faith; the obvious implication is that they haven't really thought it through like you have; that's condescending to the max. My point is that some of us *have* thought it through, and have come to different conclusions than you have, based on evidence and not just on faith or wishful thinking.Quote:
Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.
True enough, Arcura. Trying to prove the spiritual by the non-spiritual is a chasing after the wind. That was the point we were trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I'd be interested in hearing about the folks whose studies claim a supreme being of great intelligence.
dwashbur,
You have been making some very good points.
Keep up the good work.
I like to see them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
This really gets tiring. Why don't you address ALL of what I said? I said that IN HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION, IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE, absolute proof is impossible. History by its very nature has to use a different set of rules. Your examples are meaningless for studying history, because an event like the fall of Rome or the Persians takingQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Babylon without a fight can't be repeated. Hence, in history there's no such thing as absolute proof, and hence asking for it is setting up an impossible condition. QED.
Once again, the study of history requires a different set of rules and truth conditions. If you can't accept that, then it's your problem, not mine and not the OP's.Quote:
The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.
But you haven't. You have tried to subject the historical evidence to impossible criteria. If you look at it according to the accepted rules of actual historical science, you might or might not come to a different conclusion. But at least the playing field would be level.Quote:
Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.
Don't flatter yourself. I'm happy to return to the OP's topic, but you haven't verified anything except that history is not a repeatable science, which is a bit like saying "blue is blue." Let's get back to it within the parameters set up by the OP.Quote:
So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified
Dwashbur -- Time to give it up. You've been shown to be wrong (by your own words) and yet you persist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.
I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.
Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.
Athos,
I read about such folks in Astronomy magazine and the book "Exploring Reality" by John Polkinghorne that goes into that subject. "The intertwining of Science and Religion".
What is interesting is that he is a physicist who was so convinced that he became an Anglican priest.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
If that's what you need to get through the day, feel free to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Your repeated emphasis on the idea that it's all a matter of faith because history can't give you your precious "absolute proof" carries the clear implication that you have something those with "faith" don't. Whether you mean it that way or not is irrelevant, the connotation is there.Quote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.
So, because I ask you to address what I actually wrote rather than taking a snippet out of context in order to "win," that's getting emotional. Whatever.Quote:
I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.
This is the guy who calls me "condescending" and "emotional." If that's not condescending, there's no such thing, and it's obviously an emotional outburst. Pot and kettle, my friend. Feel free to have the last word.Quote:
Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 PM. |